constitutional government. It stands as the representative of justice, inoderation, legality, amidst the violence of contending passions and the tumult of perpetual crisis. There is its glory, there its danger. When reproached with its moderation, its love of peace and order, it is performing the task assigned to it;a task difficult, but honourable; and which, owing to the courage and the discretion of its defenders, it seemed at one moment certain of accomplishing.

But a government that wishes to perpetuate itself, must above all things be faithful to its origin! One man wished to be an emperor among emperors-and he fell ;-for he was naturally the popular chief among a people of soldiers. / Another man wished to be absolute monarch over a nation which had received him as its constitutional king-and he fell;—for his charter was his crown.

That charter, picked up from the pavement, where it had fallen, and blessed by a new sanction, was again placed-a popular diadem-upon the head of a monarch—justly chosen for his citizen-like virtues, his probity, his firmness, his regard for his duties and engagements. Elected by the multitude who had conquered, he was consecrated by the press for which they had fought.

His lot is to conciliate his power with the causes of his power! that he will do so, is the belief-that he may do so, is the prayer of one who, no wrangler for theoretical perfection, no advocate for successive changes, deems that having once been chosen sovereign, the continuance of his reign is best adapted to the prosperity of his country and the general interests of civilization and mankind.

Placed on the French throne, the head of the house of Orleans carried there many of the qualities of a great prince; prudent, eloquent, instructed, courageous, he has the prospect of leaving a dynasty in repose, beneath the protecting shadow of an illustrious name.

Yet is there no foundation for our affairs in desperate courses. Public as well as private life has an usurious policy --which, to satisfy the emergencies of the instant, borrows too largely from the times that will come.

Let all ministers beware of this policy! it saves for the moment—but it ruins in the end, and is equally unworthy of a people who love freedom, and of a monarchy which, with the aid of time and Providence, is well calculated to couple liberty with order.

POSTSCRIPT.

CHAPTER XV.

Two comparisons between France and England.

AND now, France disappearing from our view, as I turn, not unwillingly, homewards, it may not be incurious to enter, though but cursorily, into certain comparisons that this work suggests: -i. e. to consider how far England and France resemble one another at this moment ;—what period in French history admits the semblance of a parallel with that which will soon be English history, and is at this time passing before us.

At the present moment there can be no doubt that it would be impossible to find two countries, which, with institutions apparently similar, are so entirely different as those I have just mentioned. This is easily accounted for-the character and history of the two people are different, and the distribution of property amongst them is also totally different; -on these three things, which fashion society, and social habits-the movement, if not the form, of government depends. There is liberty and a powerful aristocracy in one country-a powerful aristocracy will never submit to slavery;-there is equality and a democracy in the other-a democracy will never tolerate privileges. Money and birth are respected here; power and talent there. The law does in point of fact and practice subject the poor man to the rich man in England; the law does

in point of fact and practice subject the individual to the governing authority in France. In either case the theory of the law would not do this. In France too, the lower classes have property, and are tranquil and independent; the higher are comparatively poor and servile. Talent, whether in arms, or literature, or through the press, governs both. In England, the lower class is daring, factious, and intelligent—the higher, prejudiced but high principled, and certainly not meanly avid of power-a middle order running between them, has hitherto kept these two extremes together.

In France again, you meet the government every where— the gendarme-the prefect-the police. In England all your affronts and annoyances come from individuals—the great man elbows you, the pauper taxes you, the pickpocket plunders you.

On one side of the channel the great man takes off his hat to the government, and asks for a place, but he calls his valet "his friend,"* and would not refuse to fight a duel with his "decorated" coachman. On the other side of the channel, the great man snaps his fingers at the government, sends the poacher to prison" for a pheasant, and pays respect to nothing, save some greater man than he is: viz. somebody better born or wealthier.

Much of this will no doubt alter with time in both countries: nor is it difficult to feel, as I write, that we breathe the quiet air of great but healthy changes.

This brings me to consider what foundation there exists for that other comparison, not rarely made, between the period in France of 1783, and that in England of 1835.

In 1789 there was in France-a nobility much indebted, too prone to idleness and dissipation, far alienated by haughty and exclusive habits from the provincial influence it had once possessed-but proud, courageous-unwilling to take a place in the new society which had grown up above it lower than that which its ancestors occupied in the old society they overshadowed-a nobility which in the days of its power menaced the authority-in the days of its decay lived upon the bounty--

* "Mon ami!"

and in the hour of its unpopularity clung to the protection-of the crown.

At this period also there was in France a middle class rising —rich, ambitious, and disgusted at the pride of an order whose privileges had lost their charm.

An active race taken from all classes, save the aristocracy, and who, eager for employment, found in the army, in the church, in the colonies, in politics in general, that the road was obstructed to all but the peculiar set they did not belong to.

A people without property, and from a variety of circumstances (those which are operating in England, are different from those which had been operating in France) utterly without attachment to the possessors of the soil.

A church, independent of the state, with immense funds most unequally distributed-furnishing a worldly provision to the aristocracy, rather than a spiritual comfort to the people.

Corporations that had outlived their purposes, already attacked in principle and but weakly defended, even by the patrons of existing things.

A public opinion strongly in favour of changes amongst the great masses of the nation, and a public opinion as strongly against innovation amongst the fashionable circles of society.

In the royal family-one prince an advocate of liberal principles (the Comte de Provence); another forming secret societies in the army (le Comte d'Artois).

In the senate-a nobility defending itself by a distinguished and eloquent man sprung from the people (Casalès); a people assailing that nobility, and headed by the great aristocracy of the land (the Montmorencys, Noailles, Lafayettes, Mirabeaus, Périgords).

So far some persons might fancy they traced a likeness; but, as we advance further, all resemblance disappears: for France had not a prudent monarch brought up in constitutional principles, nor a sober-charactered people, who had received a long political education, nor a bold and intelligent minister, equally remarkable for the sagacity of his views and his frank and manly manner of carrying them into execution.

Yet, if our comparisons fail, we shall have found in their pursuit two important lessons, really coinciding, if apparently opposed.

The one-that no class can stand against the liberal intelligence of its time :

The other that a people adopting false and exaggerated notions of liberty may delay for a century the real enjoyment of it.